Marlen Ravelo v. Le Master

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Marlen Ravelo. Signed by Judge James Donato on 10/2/18. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2018)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MARLEN RAVELO,
Petitioner,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 17-cv-06498-JD

ORDER DENYING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

v.
LE MASTER,
Respondent.

13
14

Marlen Ravelo, a federal prisoner at Federal Correctional Institution Dublin (“FCI-

15

Dublin”), has brought a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court ordered

16

respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted. Respondent filed an answer and a

17

memorandum of points and authorities in support of it, and lodged exhibits with the Court.

18

Ravelo filed a reply. The petition is denied.

19

BACKGROUND

20

Ravelo was convicted in the Western District of Washington for conspiracy with intent to

21

distribute controlled substances. See United States v. Ravelo, No. 2:15-cr-0348-RSL (W.D. WA.

22

2016). Ravelo was sentenced to 48 months in federal prison with a sentence enhancement because

23

she possessed a loaded firearm during the commission of the offense. Id. Docket Nos. 579, 581,

24

585. Her projected release date is October 26, 2019. Answer, Vicker Decl. ¶ 4. In this petition,

25

Ravelo argues that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) denied her early release even though

26

she completed the BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”). She contends this decision

27

violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and the BOP exceeded its statutory authority.

28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

LEGAL STANDARD
The BOP is required to provide every federal prisoner who has a substance abuse problem
the opportunity to participate in a treatment program while in custody. See 18 U.S.C. §
3621(b),(e). In order to encourage prisoners to seek treatment, Congress provided that the BOP
“may” reduce, by up to one year, the sentence of “a prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense”
who successfully completes a RDAP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to these
provisions, the BOP offers a 500-hour comprehensive substance abuse treatment program. See
Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081, 1082 (9th Cir. 1997). The deprivation of a prisoner’s right to be
released, or considered for early release, pursuant to these provisions states a cognizable claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See id. at 1082-87.
In 2009, the BOP exercised its discretion under § 3621(e)(2)(B) by implementing a
regulation that categorically excludes certain classes of inmates from eligibility for § 3621(e)’s
early release incentive. See 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b). Among these categories are inmates convicted
of an offense that involved the carrying, possession or use of a firearm, id. § 550.55(b)(5)(ii), and
inmates with a prior conviction for homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson,
kidnapping or child sexual abuse, id. § 550.55(b)(4). Peck v. Thomas, 697 F.3d 767, 770-92 (9th
Cir. 2012). The BOP did not violate the APA in implementing the 2009 regulation excluding such
inmates from § 3621(e). Id. at 772-73; see also id. at 770 (citing unanimity among other circuits
in finding regulation valid under APA).
In view of 18 U.S.C. § 3625, which is entitled Inapplicability of the APA, federal courts
lack jurisdiction to review BOP’s individualized residential drug abuse program determinations
made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), such as whether to admit a particular prisoner into RDAP,
or to grant or deny a sentence reduction for completion of the program. Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d
1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011). But federal judicial review remains available for allegations that BOP
action is contrary to established federal law, violates the United States Constitution, or exceeds its
statutory authority. Id. But cf. id. at 1228 n.4 (inmate cannot prevail on due process claim
because inmates do not have a protected liberty interest in either RDAP participation or early
release, an associated discretionary benefit).
DISCUSSION

16

Ravelo first argues that the BOP’s rule precluding inmates who committed crimes

17
involving a firearm from receiving an earlier release after completing RDAP violates the APA
18
because the BOP did not sufficiently state its rationale for the rule. However, the Ninth Circuit in
19
Peck rejected a claim that this regulation was not procedurally valid and violated the APA. The
20
Ninth Circuit found that the BOP had sufficiently stated its rationale for the rule. Peck at 773.
21

Because Ravelo’s argument has already been rejected by the Ninth Circuit, this claim is denied.

22
Ravelo next argues that the finding that she possessed a firearm was just a sentencing
23
enhancement, while the underlying conviction for the drug offense did not contain an element
24
related to the firearm. She contends that the application of the BOP regulations to her crime
25
violated the APA and exceeded statutory authority.
26
She is not entitled to relief on this claim. In Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 61 (1995), the
27

Supreme Court held that an agency’s interpretation of its own rules is not subject to APA review.

28
2

The BOP firearm regulations are valid under the APA, and within the BOP’s authority granted by

2

statute. In Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241, 244 (2001), the Supreme Court rejected an

3

argument that the BOP’s creation of additional rules denying RDAP credit to prisoners who had

4

used firearms in the commission of their commitment offense violated the statutory authority of §

5

3621. The Supreme Court stated that, “The Bureau reasonable concluded that an inmates’ prior

6

involvement with firearms, in connection with the commission of a felony, suggest his readiness

7

to resort to life-endangering violence and therefore appropriately determines the early release

8

decision.” Lopez at 244; see also Ryan v. Thomas, No. 3:11-cv-00448, 2012 WL 1890376, at *4

9

(D. Or. May 22, 2012) (denying petitioner’s challenge to the denial of RDAP early-release credit

10

based on sentence enhancements involving use of firearms). To the extent Ravelo seeks a general

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

review of the BOP’s determination with respect to her particular circumstances, the Court lacks

12

jurisdiction for such review. See Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1228.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

CONCLUSION

1
2

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: October 2, 2018

5
6
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARLEN RAVELO,

Case No. 17-cv-06498-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

LE MASTER,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

14
15
16
17
18

That on October 2, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

19
20
21

Marlen Ravelo ID: 29871-086
Federal Correctional Institution
5701 8th Street Camp Parks
Dublin, CA 94568

22
23
24

Dated: October 2, 2018

25
26

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

27
28
5

1
2

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6